True, but it's MacOS is STILL an alternative to Billy's crap and it isn't
selling which should give everyone a clear idea that it's just not a question
of availibility of non M$ crap. It's a question of what the people want.

Not quite. Let's apply some information systems theory here.

We can assume that very knowledgable computer people, who have been
interested in computers for some time, have already made up their
minds on one basis or another; in terms of OS sales, there aren't
really enough to matter.

However, the ignorant computer user is different. They don't knwo
anything about computers, and in order to be of interest in this
discussion, they have come to the realization that they either need or
want to have a computer. Thus, they engage in a search for
information about computers, typically through whatever information
channels they have already established; they may ask friends (who are
likely to be relatively ignorant as well), they may ask salesmen, they
may buy a computer magazine, they may look at what people use at work.

The only thing they are almost certain NOT to do is use the
information channels that experienced and knowledgable computer users
use -- simply because they are unaware, or unfamiliar, or don't
understand the information.

When they are executing this search, most people will engage in a
"satisfactory" search rather than a
"maximizing" search that is, they
won't look for the best possible solution. They will look for a
solution that satisfies their need, and they will use the first
satisfactory solution they come across.

At least 80% of the
"satisfactory" solutions on the
market are Wintel PCs.
This person will not have heard of Linux or UNIX ever, in most
cases; they may have heard of the Macintosh, but they have no clue
what makes the Mac better or worse. In fact, they aren't likely to
have ever seen a Mac, and if they have, it was likely in a showroom
with Macs priced significantly higher than the PCs across the room. In
this context, the Amiga isn't even worth a footnote.

MicroSoft has gained such a powerful dominance of the market that the
average new computer buyer has learned everything they know about
computers, either directly or indirectly, from the MicroSoft and Intel
marketing blitz. They no longer even PERCEIVE a choice, in their
satisficing search; the
"satisfactory" alternative is already
tapping them on the shoulder periodically to say
"buy me".

Those who are interested enough to put effort into looking at
alternatives are still faced with serious disadvantages; they don't
know how or where to get information about alternatives. Their
ignorance shapes their perceptions to the point where they may have
trouble understanding what IS an alternative, and when swamped by
aggressive marketing, no ignorant buyer will be able to comprehend
that ALL the cloners are selling the same thing; they try to process
all the information without any baseline, they fail miserably (no one
could even HOPE to process everything out there), and they stop
trying.

At this point most of these ignorant users find a friend or a salesman
who is more knowledgable (or perceived to be more knowledgable) and
let them decide what they buy. This isn't a bad policy if your guide
knows what they are doing and has your best interests at heart, but
the "friend" usually went through the same process a year ago (thus
having the same problems, but an illusion of competence), and the
salesman... well, when was the last time you heard a salesman hyping a
Mac?

I've seen this happen to people, and it isn't pretty. People who are
perfectly competent otherwise fall to pieces when they need to buy a
computer. It's threatening, so they duck the responsibility in one
way or another, and end up getting what everybody else has, and
perpetuating the problem when their friend asks them for advice next
year.

The fact is, people don't want MS specifically. They want:

A computer that does the things computers do.
("What a computer does" is determined by MS advertising)

Something they can use to do whatever they decided they needed a
computer to do. This is often based on advertising, or taking office
work home, or the nifty game their friend has.

Something they are familiar with, because it is less scary when
taking this big step. (Advertising.)

Something they will be able to get help with from people they know.
(The people they know almost certainly use MS as well).

A "safe" choice, something they
are sure won't bite them. Even the steadfastly ignorant understand
that the cutting edge CUTS, if you don't know how to use it.
(aka, don't buy a sword unless you can manage not to cut your feet
off with it).

This is what people want, not specifically MicroSoft. If another
company had MS's position, the people would be buying that instead.
This situation, unfortunately, isn't likely to change anytime soon;
the OS (for a single hardware platform) is about as close to a natural
monopoly as things get. There may be a window of oppurtunity as MS
needs to switch processors, or other major technological innovations,
but I don't think anything is likely to seriously shake MS's dominance
until the computer market is sufficiently knowledgable to understand
that the emperor has no clothes.

The problem is that by the time this happens, the Emperor may have
acquired a full wardrobe from the people he's stabbed in the back.